When we got Saddam's sons in the first few weeks of the Iraq war, we specifically sent out a photo of them dead so there would be no doubt. Where was the Muslim/Arab uprising?

Actually, that was supposed to happen at the start of the Iraq war, and before that at the start of the Afghanistan war. But the funny thing is, the tougher we get, the more we show we mean business, the calmer the world gets. It's when we fall all over ourselves with apologies and get obsequious that we are taping a big "kick me" sign on our back, and the world obliges..

Well then maybe they should have told Panetta that up front rather than having all these people tell all these stories and contradict themselves and each other.

Obama might not want to show us a photo, but he will no doubt be doing some strutting tomorrow. It might be classier to lay a wreath and give the day to a reading of the names..but that would not make much of a campaign commercial

At least they had the sense to bury him at sea so there would be no "shrine" for all his good followers to make a pilgrimage site. But the pictures will eventually leak out by some variation of wikileaks since the MSM will be doing their best to hide anything that "the one" does not approve.

The Guardian today is full of comments on how the US "murdered" OBL "in cold blood". Or that they killed him "execution style" and are hiding it. You can't win.

I am sure that there must be medical exam pictures of him before or after they cleaned him up for burial too - since you have to wash the body if you follow the Islamic rules. Show those.

I approve. We don't need the government sanction this ghoulish episode, I generally favor pushback against the constant monotonous demand for "transparency," and to cap it all off, the photos will leak within a month anyway.

First, and foremost, Panetta is shoving this up Obama like a stick of Preparation H. Look at the picture. Obama does not want to be there. He’s sitting in a subordinate position and looking weak.Yet, the reason for not dropping bombs on the building was the need for irrefutable proof of the death. Now, President Obama refuses to release the “irrefutable proof.” We can simply believe in him. He likes that about some of you.His excuse reeks of political correctness. We can see if he was correct by watching the wild-eyed Mohamtans stand down because of his thoughtful gesture to them. He so clearly did not plan or command the raid. At best he can be credited for playing golf and not getting in the way.It’s like voting present.

The only thing I truly believe is that there was a special forces raid on this mansion/compound and that 3 people were killed and one wounded and I think that bin Laden and his son probably also were killed.

Other than that, I think this administration has mucked up their stories so bad that nothing is certain.

It is unbelievable, if we did not see it happen, that these people could have been preparing this caper for months, and they had no idea what they were going to day or do when it finally went down.

heh, I am not wearing rose-colored glasses like you do (or like that teacher of the year awardee grabbing his thigh while walking to the podium)..I fully expect him to trot out his trophy, his spiked football or whatever he is calling it, in October 2012 if he is still running.

I feel no need to see the pictures. The guys dead, rejoice if you wish.

On the way to taking my daughter to school the morning after we found out and hearing jubilation on the radio, my daughter asked me if I was glad OBL was dead. I told her not really. He deserved to die and I would have killed him myself. He was a man who chose to waste his life being evil. But, I don't like to rejoice in someone's death. I guess those nuns in grade school hammered something into my head.

Anyway. Look, I didn't want to see photos of dead soldiers or of Abu Ghraib either. And I don't need to see photos of Bin Laden now. So I'm glad we can agree on that.

Whether or not this is political expediency I am not so sure. The two are different. I don't recall Obama approved release of Abu Ghraib photos. Although he certainly used them for politics. Who wouldn't? And soldiers at Dover deal with the whole concept of freedom of the press to take photos. In the case of Bin Laden there was no press on hand. The SEALS are the only ones with photos [presumedly]. So holding on to the photos is not out of line. If the press was there we would have seen photos.

As they once said in the Bombay Horse Artillery, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?".

This is the guy who went around saying, "I won", to every Republican that wanted to talk about common ground after he was inaugurated.

Frankly, if the story that Panetta, Gates, and Company basically engineered a limited coup d'etat to get this op done has any truth, this sounds like Little Zero's attempt to reassert his and Jarrett's authority.

Wait, so you disapprove of Bin Laden being shot in the face? What are you some dirty hippy now? Good grief.

I don't get 'joy' from his death or the method in which he died - if that is what you mean. But there is a certain satisfaction to having him dead. I don't think anyone would deny that. Except maybe you to make a partisan point??

Having said it's great, are you sure it's Twain's? A google book search finds nothing exact, but finds a Clarence Darrow quote that is very similar ("I have never killed anybody, but I have done just the same thing. I have had a great deal of satisfaction over many obituary notices that I have read"). Of course, Darrow may have been alluding to a now lost Twain quote, but more likely it was his.

The Mark Twain quote (I have never killed a man, but I have read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction) really captures what I think about it.

LOL. I know what he means. I've felt the same way. I tend not to be demonstrative in victory, and I think there's a line, a fine line maybe, between satisfaction and rejoicing.

I feel satisfaction that OBL met his end at the hands of our soldiers. Seeing the picture won't make me feel any different. Pulling the trigger would have made it a little more gratifying, but a younger guy who worked hard for that opportunity earned it.

I disagree with your assement of the 'Liberal media'. You are building a straw man based on your partisan view of things. You also completely lose your point in the second part of your comment. In each case the record was clarified within 24 hours. That's pretty fast. Hell if this was WW2 we wouln't get facts for days or weeks.

Getting all the facts is not something that is actually as easy as you may think. The guys in the Situation Room apparently only had video outside of the compound. The rest was video of generals in offices getting audio and text of what was going down.

So I think you need to step back a bit and take in all the facts you can to get a complete picture [minus the Bin Laden one, of course]. These things are not like a movie where you can rewind and watch every detail five times.

True, Panetta said a photo would be released. But it is ultimately not his call. He was wrong to overstep his authority on this point. But so what? He got his man and that is a lot more important that a screwed up talking point.

Whether or not this is political expediency I am not so sure. The two are different. I don't recall Obama approved release of Abu Ghraib photos. Although he certainly used them for politics. Who wouldn't? And soldiers at Dover deal with the whole concept of freedom of the press to take photos. In the case of Bin Laden there was no press on hand. The SEALS are the only ones with photos [presumedly]. So holding on to the photos is not out of line. If the press was there we would have seen photos.

@Matt: My harsh toned was meant to be outrageous in response to your hyper-partisan view of these matters. The fact that you can't see a connection between all these photographic issues and put yourself outside of politics deserves to be screamed at.

Obama changed his stance on the photos once he became president. Politcally expedient or changing his mind once he is the one in charge? I would say both. All I know is it disappointed some on the left that he changed his mind.Anyway I would say that he is being consistent here - as president - regarding photos.

Everyone knows that many views of a candidate running for office changes once they become president [or governor, etc]. I am not saying I agree with this method. I am just pointing out a fact. It is what makes many of us cynical of politics. But it's not new.

Of course President Obama made the correct choice. Otherwise, our enemies would do the same kind of blatant behavior with our dead, hang their burnt bodies from bridge deck, drag their corpses behind vehicles, show them being killed in the most grotesque ways, dancing to show joy after killing our people, harming captives of ours that they hold, it could go on if we dare show such photos of their dead.

-This was actually a passive-aggressive insult to a so-called martyr. Apparently, a martyr is supposed to be clothed in the cloths they where wearing when they died.

-Rove was on Hannity's radio show today. He said that the military's preference was to not release the photos because doing so would increase the danger for our troops. He also said that BHO should have said that this decision was done to minimize retaliation, instead of mentioning the football. Since listening to Rove, I've heard BHO specifically explain that limiting retaliation was critical to his decision. Imagine my surprise when I learned that Rove is a manipulator.

The photos are information that is available, and therefore should be released. In a homicide, the body would have been examined, photographed, entry and exit wounds noted, and the photographs presented to the jury as proof of what happened. The state does not provide the pictures to "spike the ball".We are the jury. The world is the jury. We deserve the information so we may judge our government, so we may prove our success.

I've heard BHO specifically explain that limiting retaliation was critical to his decision.

See, that's no good either. It makes us look weak.

"Sorry we killed your evil guy. And no, we don't even consider him to be one of you good and noble people. Unless you do of course. In case you do, we've followed all of your funeral customs. Please don't be mad as us. Pretty please. Let's pretend it never happened."

That's one weak looking horse.

It's good to be professional and avoid gloating. It's not good to refuse to provide basic proof that you did what you did to those who distrust you.

Drudge had a link to a Rueters story with pictures of three dead men. Ali Baba Bin Laden , Fakrash Al-Amash Bin Laden , and Uncle Tonoose Bin Laden,unfortunately no Osama Bin Laden. Will this set off Muslim Rage Boy,or is he also waiting for the real thing?

Color me very skeptical,I am under no constitutional obligation to believe what the government tells me without proof.

If your recent post is addressed to me... I don't live in DC. I live in California. I won't deny I am a liberal and live among mostly liberals.

Every place people live has a political influence on their views. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing but it is a generally accepted fact. Most people actually choose to surround themselves with people who have a similar political or religious view.

With this in mind you say that living in a military town has 'profoundly affected your views but then you say my ‘tribe’ is a political one. How can your ‘tribe’ not also be a political one if it has clearly affected your [political] views?

I just don't buy the fact that one side is dirty and the other is pure and clean. We simply have different political views.

The Muslims know that Bin Laden's day of playing Mohammed who has authority to slaughtermoderate Muslims and promote despising Muslim cattle (a/k/a women) is over. I suspect that they know that Osama is dead and are thankful. As for gentle golfer Barak, he has now earned his stripes as a CIC by proving that he would just as soon kill the enemy as look at one. Playing nice about the bloody photos is actually Barak rubbing it in that he proved that he is now the man who holds the power to kill Muslims.

If they were watching the house for a month and he slept on it for sixteen hours-why couldn't they have decided ensemble how to prove it?

Not only to the American people that were terrorized by the fact that Osama was running loose for ten years but to the international community?

Remember it was the Democrats that took full advantage of the fact that President Bush had not captured Bin Laden and even though the country had been kept safe from another attack for seven years by President Bush the Democrats tried their best to capiltalize on that fact by "keeping fear alive".

The Democrats bemoaned the lack of capture of Bin Laden, and turned it into a campaign issue.

They owe the American public visual confirmation that they found Osama.

They also-after sending in four helicopters full of Navy SEALs into the sovereign territory of a nuclear power and spending millions on that mission (if one account is to be believed) should have gotten visual confirmation that we had Osama on site.

Given that the command structure of the JSOC is entirely and only answerable to the Executive and that they only take orders from the Executive-it's hard to believe that someone on the Executive was not given confirmation while Osama was alive that we had him.

We have the capability and capacity to do that.

Finding Osama and stopping him has been a primary goal of the United States that has cost the American people a blood and treasure and took ten years to accomplish.

The bottom line is that this story out of the White House stinks to high heaven. This is not a partisan characterization. There have been multiple stories come out of the same source - not a piecing together of several sources (although several sources have severely conflicting information).

The American people deserve a proper explanation. No one can disagree with that.

By continuing to obscure information, Obama prolongs the confusion and frustration. Please stop defending his actions (which are hardly supportable based on his prior actions toward release of other "inflamatory" photos) and start demanding as much accountability as you would any leader.

An exquisitely sensitive man is constantly threatening to stick you with a penknife for any slight he perceives on your part.

There are two options available to you.

(A) You order your manner and expression to avoid any possible perception of slight on your part, real or imagined. As his sensitivity increases over time, you increase the lengths to which you go to avoid his wrath.

(B) You treat him respectfully, but do not enable his exquisite sensitivity. If he moves to stab you with the penknife, you give him a terrible thrashing.

Who has the most power under each option?

Under which option are you more likely to be stabbed repeatedly with a penknife?

The United States of America has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to find this man.

And now they find him and kill him, but yet wont show the taxpayer the fruits of a 10-year search.

The American public has no problems seeing bloody, gory movies like Saw, or seeing moving war pictures like Black Hawk Down. But according to our president, we cant handle a picture of a man with a bullet hole in his head.

Those who hate us won't hate us any more. There are obvious and numerous reasons to fear us. A photo won't increase that fear.

I don't care if the photos are released. Again, Obama's reasoning is bullshit. I'd rather spike the football in the terrorists' faces than show them respect. It's an insult to peaceful Muslims to equate "respect" for OBL to them.

Funny how there a holes in every aspect of proving OBL's death at this point. The DNA could be from a male sibling. The photos could be faked. The body is gone. No long form birth certificate. It's as if Obama hates closure.

I simply don't need to see proof of Bin Laden's death. If for some odd reason he is alive then we will hear about if because Bin Laden liked to make videos.

Synova

I partly agree with you but, in my view, Obama is talking about the perception the photos might have in the Muslim world. Or at least his view of their perception. The counter to that is, "well they already hate us so why not just show the photos". I see valid arguments from both sides.

Matt said...I simply don't need to see proof of Bin Laden's death. If for some odd reason he is alive then we will hear about if because Bin Laden liked to make videos."

Well the faith you have is touching but a lot of people don't and when some bearded douchenozzle claims to be Osama we can just exhume his body to show that he is dead and let the UN or somebody verify that it is him and ....errr....errrr...nevermind.

You know my local funeral home has thing called the "Pre-Plan" where you can pay for your funeral in advance so your loved ones don't have to worry about the arrangements. Several of the older ladies in the neighborhood have set it up with Scotto's funeral home. I am sure we can hook them up.

I would probably be inclined to agree with the president if his administration hadn't spent the days following the kill turning a major military success into a political clusterfuck"

-They don't allow independent confirmation-They don't have the story straight on exactly what happened before going to press-They haven't decided on a policy of whether to release photos of the operation/funeral/body-And it turns out that they didn't even have a video feed for 25 minutes of the 40 minute operation (apparently the 25 minutes where most of this occurred).

"Sorry we killed your evil guy. And no, we don't even consider him to be one of you good and noble people. Unless you do of course. In case you do, we've followed all of your funeral customs. Please don't be mad as us. Pretty please. Let's pretend it never happened."

Exactly. That we disposed of his remains expeditiously (a.k.a. a hasty and complete destruction of the best evidence of the facts surrounding his death) somehow makes up for the fact that we killed him, in the minds of his followers?

I just don't understand where all the blind faith in our intelligence come from. We have been stuck in an expensive, decade long war in Iraq that turns out was based upon shitty intelligence that was later proved wrong.

There have also been numerous times when the authenticity of particular video and audio tapes of Bin Laden have been disputed **within** the intelligence community.

Why are people so SURE without any proof that they got it right this time? I just don't get it.

I really don't care to see the pictures. But I do need to know that others outside of our government have seen the pictures and have scrutinized them. That is pretty important.

I was thinking what if all this happened in 2013. President The Donald "BAM. HEADSHOT! THE F*CKERS DEAD! LOOK AT HIM! LOOK. AT. HIM! I'M GOING TO KILL ALL OF THESE MOTHERF*CKERS! WHAT DO I SAY TO THE ARAB COMMUNITY? F*CK THE ARAB COMMUNITY!"

Also, the photos wouldn't really settle very much. And who knows what incongruity someone will find in one of the photos to latch onto as "proof" the photos are doctored.

Anyway, why do we have to prove to anyone we got Osama? It's important we are sure we did. It's important the others who worked with him know we did. And if other terrorists are simply wondering, how is that bad?

If folks decide Osama lives nonetheless, what can we do? Not much. If someone decides, "I am Osama" and starts issuing messages--apart from the risk of such a decision--again, we can't really prevent that. So why set a goal we cannot achieve?

Come to think of it, maybe this is why President Bush decided it wasn't a good idea to make getting Osama the overriding thing.

If we were really going to treat his body with proper Muslim respect, we would let it hang where the birds could eat his eyes, then we would partially burn the body, drag it through the streets in pig shit, and finally let dogs chew on the bones. Damn straight we need to trot out this trophy. Stuffing the body of dead rats down the rat hole is a message the rats understand.

Did Obama ever have an honest, hard-fought, legitimate victory, which warranted a ball spiking? I doubt it. All of his electoral victories were fixed in advance. I suspect his academic accomplishments as well. The reason he is so thin-skinned is because deep down inside he knows he just a suit: smoke and mirrors. There is nothing there. The man is a fraud and he knows it.

"Also, the photos wouldn't really settle very much. And who knows what incongruity someone will find in one of the photos to latch onto as 'proof' the photos are doctored."

D.D. Driver replied:

This meme must die. With all due respect it is profoundly dumb.

Yes: there is a very small segment of the population that will get caught up in a conspiracy theory. You betcha!

So what?

Should we stop teaching evolution in schools because someone will not believe it no matter the evidence? Is that what we've come to? The conspiracy theorists' veto?

I get your point, but the comparison is inapt; I don't see the need or obligation to release these photos that equates to the need and obligation to teach science to students. Not the same.

The argument, as I understood it, for releasing the pictures was to "prove it" and to settle the argument. My point is, for whom? For those who aren't convinced now? Who is that? What is this audience that is not convinced by what has been reported, but will be, by photos?

To me, what persuades me that we did get Osama is the fact that it would be exceedingly foolish to claim we did, if we didn't. Sensible folks will see that, and convincing senseless folks seems a misuse of our resources.

Now, if someone later can come on the scene and really convince folks he's Osama, and the U.S. made it up...then it's not clear to me what advantage releasing the photos now has, versus releasing them later. Besides, if someone can do that, we can go get him, too.

"What is this audience that is not convinced by what has been reported, but will be, by photos?"

Me for one. I'm not *convinced*. I "believe" that it happened, but I'm not "convinced" that it happened. There is a not so subtle distinction between the two concepts that seems to be lost on too many.

That said, I won't be convinced by the photos themselves. I will be convinced when the photos are scrutinized and verified by outside experts.

Going to Ground Zero on a date four months before 9/11 most certainly is "spiking the football."

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Notice how W turned down the invite? Two reasons: first, he learned his lesson after "Mission Accomplished"; second, I wouldn't trust O not to trash the previous administratiion--AGAIN--just to please the left wing base.

"What is this audience that is not convinced by what has been reported, but will be, by photos?"

D.D. Driver replied:

Me for one. I'm not *convinced*. I "believe" that it happened, but I'm not "convinced" that it happened. There is a not so subtle distinction between the two concepts that seems to be lost on too many.

That said, I won't be convinced by the photos themselves. I will be convinced when the photos are scrutinized and verified by outside experts.

OK, fair enough. And this may sound like a smart-alecky question, but it's not meant that way: How important should convincing you (and presumably some number of other folks like you) be to the U.S. government?

To my thinking, either Osama is dead, or he's a captive of our government with a cover story of being dead. If dead, he's either dead very recently, or else it recently behooved the government to say he's dead.

But it strikes me as very odd that the U.S. government would claim to kill him if he's alive and not under its control. No good reason to do that I can see; but I'm open to suggestion.

I can understand folks wanting to know the exact facts, but I can also see why the government would want, say, to keep him alive but not have anyone know it. I'm dubious that that happened, but it's possible.

I can also see a benefit to the government not wanting to eliminate all doubt and fear about such a possibility.

Anyway, to me it adds up to very little benefit to the government to supplying those pictures, very little benefit to the republic or the rest of the world, sufficient to outweigh the government's reluctance.